babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Ontario MPPs - including NDP - condemn Israeli Apartheid Week in Legislature Part II

110 replies [Last post]

Comments

Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

What an asshole. 

The reason D'Novo was pilloried, and with complete justification, is because she joined with the supporters of racism and oppression to approve a statement that Israel respects human rights, providing that Palestinians are not regarded as human, and condemning activists on university campuses, where free speech and academic freedom is unassailable when racists such as Pipes and Nethanyahu are invited, for protesting racist Israeli policy as practised, or rather, applied against Palestinians. 

I will never overestimate the capacity of the unjustifiably arrogant, or maybe we call you intellectually stunted these days, to retort with the pretense of actually having something meaningful to contribute.

Piss off ...

 


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

Frustrated Mess wrote:

But is the Jewish State illegimate? No more so than a white South Africa or any other state founded on an ethnic, linguistic, racial or religious superiority would be. If one can say the Jewish state is legitimate, then one must also say an Islamic or Aryan state is equally legitimate.

 

I guess by that measure - a Tamil state would be illegitimate since its based on carving out an ethnically pure Tamil nation where the Tamils can feel superior and have a homeland - and let's not even get into what that says about Quebec nationalism. What possible explanation can there be for wanting an independent Quenec than to express the imagines ethnic, racial and linguistic superiority of the pur laine Quebecois over everyone else.


genstrike
Offline
Joined: May 1 2008

synthome wrote:

Whatever people's personal feelings regarding DiNovo, she did not deserve to be pilloried and reviled the way she has been in this thread.

I'm sorry, the Ontario legislature including DiNovo just voted to condemn me and people I'm working with.  You were saying something about being pilloried and reviled?


Maysie
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2005

synthome wrote:
 Also, to the overeducated overpaid gay men who think its "progressive" to march alongside banners of Hamas, I simply invite you to take your short shorts over to Gaza and march for gay rights there.

synthome, don't post homophobic crap like this again. First and last warning.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Maysie, please don't be so hard on synthome - he/she followed me home, and I know it looks a little scruffy and mangy, but omigod it's cuuuute! Can I please keep it and play with it - pleeeeeze!?

 


spatrioter
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2002

Cognitive dissonance or irony?

synthome wrote:

The enemy of my enemy is not always a friend...

...I simply invite you to take your short shorts over to Gaza and march for gay rights there.

Also, why go to Gaza when we can stay right here and fight homophobes like you?


Skinny Dipper
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2005

If the term Israel Apartheid Week were not effective, MPP Peter Shurman would not have presented a motion to essentially censure the IAW and its use of its name.  The organizers could have used Palestinian Liberation Week or something else.  However, no one would have been paying attention to the the organizers on the Israeli-Palestinian/Palestinian-Israeli issue.

If the IAW had a different name but still advocated divestment, sanctions, and boycotts of Israeli products and services, I would guess that Mr. Shurman would have presented a motion claiming that these actions are hurtful to freedom of speech and are also anti-Semitic.

I have mentioned on other comment boards that the boycott Israel campaign may not be as effective from Canada as it would be from Europe.  We don't do much trade with Israel whereas the European countries do more. They are geographically closer to Israel.  A few months ago, Israel had proposed to Fatah using an Egyptian mediator and negotiating in Egypt.  Fatah prefers to use a European mediator as this would attract more attention in Europe and keeps the focus on the boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign in Europe.  If the Israeli economy goes down, Israel will eventually negotiate on terms favourable to the Palestinians.

The Ontario NDP MPPs who were presently in the legislature during the vote were probably stategically right to support the motion even if privately the may have been morally opposed.  If they had actively opposed the motion, the NDP would have gained very little in terms of voter and financial support, but also faced the wrath of some fairly well-run Jewish organizations.  The ONDP doesn't need to go into the next provincial election only to be distracted by an "anti-Semitic" label.


synthome
Offline
Joined: Jun 16 2006

genstrike wrote:

I'm sorry, the Ontario legislature including DiNovo just voted to condemn me and people I'm working with.  You were saying something about being pilloried and reviled?

First, perhaps learn something about parliamentary procedure and re-read Bookish Agrarian above. You could argue that collectively parliament passed a resolution with absolutely no binding authority that condemned the use of the term apartheid and questioned if that kind of incendiary, arguably inappropriate terminology, is constructive to what I assume everyone wants, which is peace. The motion neither has any legal force nor does it condemn you personally.

Now I think it would be fair either to defend the use of the term apartheid or critique the assumption that Israel is a democratic state that respects the rule of law and human rights. Regardless, it seems the self-righteous indignation should be directed at parliament and not a personalized attack on someone who is a proven ally of the left and whom you cannot ascertain voted for the motion. Not to mention that in her hansard remarks she unequivocally lines up with the Federal NDP policy on the need for a two state solution, she condemns the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. Having read her remarks in Hansard, I found her statement moving, eloquent, and on the mark. So a more probative question for me would be why invest so much vitriol and anger in DiNovo? There's something subterranean going on here (unconscious anti-semitism, latent sexism, I don't know, but the outrage is not commensurate with the offence).

I know, I know, I promised I'd get lost, and I will,  but I thought it pertinent to respond to comments directed at me.

@Maysie: Deliberate and acknowledged provocation is to be censored, but name calling and personal attacks constitute legitimate discourse around here. No need to worry I'll happily banish myself.

@Unionist: I wouldn't have expected anything else. Either posturing as absolute authority (I love the way you speak on behalf of all Jewish tradition and quoted the definitive text of the Seder Supper. I don't know, but could there be more liberal/reform versions of the celebration?) or truculence and dismissal. In your last effort you simply chose the latter. Perhaps you could learn a few things about intellectual honesty, reverential dialogue, and common respect.

@Frustrated Mess: Care to demonstrate that any of the NDP MPP's present voted in favour of the motion? Because DiNovo concurred that the use of the term apartheid might be needlessly incendiary cannot be extrapolated to mean either that she supports all parts of Shurman's motion nor that she voted in favour of it. Also feel free to completely ignore her decades of fighting for social justice and her condemnation of the occupation of Palestinian territory. But don't let that stop the bloodletting.


Stargazer
Offline
Joined: Jun 9 2004

Next!!!


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

Stockholm wrote:

 

I guess by that measure - a Tamil state would be illegitimate since its based on carving out an ethnically pure Tamil nation where the Tamils can feel superior and have a homeland - and let's not even get into what that says about Quebec nationalism. What possible explanation can there be for wanting an independent Quenec than to express the imagines ethnic, racial and linguistic superiority of the pur laine Quebecois over everyone else.

If a Tamil state could only exist by oppressing and brutalizing the majority, and by providing citizenship, political rights, protection of law, and other civil rights only to those defined as "Tamil", then you may be right in questioning its legitimacy although the majority population would likely already be doing so. Ditto for an independent Quebec.

If you wish to argue that minority populations have a right to use force, terror, and political repression to maintain ethnic and political superiority over the majority, then I would argue history is not on your side. There are many, many examples of such states in history and while some have enjoyed lengthy lifespans, very few have been able to last for very, very long. No state founded on the violent repression of a majority population and permanent war with its neighbours will enjoy permanence.

Don't take my word for it, read history.


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

Skinny Dipper wrote:

The Ontario NDP MPPs who were presently in the legislature during the vote were probably stategically right to support the motion even if privately the may have been morally opposed.  If they had actively opposed the motion, the NDP would have gained very little in terms of voter and financial support, but also faced the wrath of some fairly well-run Jewish organizations.  The ONDP doesn't need to go into the next provincial election only to be distracted by an "anti-Semitic" label.

I couldn't disagree more. First, the ONDP has demonstrated a lack of principles and second it has contributed to the closure of debate. The smear of "anti-semitism" with regard to institutionalized Israeli racism serves to both dilute the meaning of anti-semtism and to cast a chill over honest and serious debate with regard to Israel's serious, flagrant, and criminal human rights abuses and war crimes.

The ONDP has done a great disservice to everyone who cares not just about Palestinian rights but all human rights. They have just played into the game that a violent abuser has a legitimate interest in maintaining the state of the abused. So, to offer a hypothetical, the slave master has a legitimate economic interest that must be addressed by the slave if he or she is to ever be free. For an actual example,  think of Haiti and its long hostory of poverty, suffering, and deprivation resulting directly from being saddled with paying reparations to France for having deprived France of the benefits of the Haitian slave colony. That is the paradigm that the ONDP voted to support.


aka Mycroft
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2004

On Atzmon - he actually is an anti-semite and a rather crude on at that having taken a few stabs at Holocaust denial and also argued that Jews ritually murdered Christian babies. He's also reportedly converted to Christianity so he has all the anti-Semitic zeal of the convert.

In other news

Quote:

Conservative Member of Parliament Denounces Israeli Apartheid Week
 
Statement by Tim Uppal, MP for Edmonton-Sherwood Park on Israeli Apartheid Week
 
 
Ottawa, February 26, 2010 - Our Conservative Government has taken a zero-tolerance approach to all forms of hatred, including anti-Semitism. Standing side by side with the State of Israel, our friend and ally in the democratic family of nations, we unequivocally condemn efforts to single out and attack the Jewish people and their homeland.
 
Next week, after consultations with all political parties, I will proudly introduce the following motion before the House of Commons:
 
"That this House considers itself to be a friend of the State of Israel; that this House is concerned about expressions of anti-Semitism under the guise of "Israeli Apartheid Week"; and that this House explicitly condemns any action in Canada as well as internationally that would equate the State of Israel with the rejected and racist policy of apartheid."
 
On university campuses, Israeli Apartheid Week promotes the one-sided, intolerant, and unbalanced position that Israel is a racist state. This has helped create a public opinion environment where Jewish students who happen to also support Israel are subject to condemnation and opprobrium.
 
Canadians are free within the bounds of our law to express their opinions. At the same time, it's important for Members of Parliament to stand up and publicly condemn efforts to single out one group of people for harsh treatment. I sincerely hope that all Members of Parliament will support this motion.  


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

aka Mycroft wrote:

Quote:

Conservative Member of Parliament Denounces Israeli Apartheid Week
 
Statement by Tim Uppal, MP for Edmonton-Sherwood Park on Israeli Apartheid Week
 
 
At the same time, it's important for Members of Parliament to stand up and publicly condemn efforts to single out one group of people for harsh treatment.

And yet the harsh treatment of one group of people, Palestinians, by the racist state of Israel seems to have missed this fellows attention. How can that be? Conservative racism and support for neo-colonial enterprises, maybe?


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

Students Against Israeli Apartheid Present:

complete list of speakers and events

http://www.toronto.apartheidweek.org


pogge
Offline
Joined: Mar 25 2002

Skinny Dipper wrote:

The Ontario NDP MPPs who were presently in the legislature during the vote were probably stategically right to support the motion even if privately the may have been morally opposed.  If they had actively opposed the motion, the NDP would have gained very little in terms of voter and financial support, but also faced the wrath of some fairly well-run Jewish organizations.  The ONDP doesn't need to go into the next provincial election only to be distracted by an "anti-Semitic" label.

I couldn't disagree more. (Yes, I think someone already said that.) You're suggesting that the ONDP should forget about showing leadership on an issue and instead take a completely self-serving position that involves condemning the citizens they're supposed to represent on behalf of a foreign government that continues to commit crimes in the conduct of a long, brutal and illegal military occupation. I think the people who would vote for a party like that are already spoken for. The rest of us are increasingly inclined to stay home or spoil our ballots if there's no one to vote for who rises above the level of craven opportunism and cynical political calculation on issues involving human rights.

If anything I'm angrier now than when I first read about this.


Stargazer
Offline
Joined: Jun 9 2004

we unequivocally condemn efforts to single out and attack the Jewish people and their homeland.

 

Bloody hell! I had no idea that Israel was my boyfriend's "homeland". I better go tell him to immediately ditch his Canadian citizenship. He obviously did not get the memo.


Skinny Dipper
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2005

Hi Pogge,

The NDP could have opposed Shurman's private member bill for the reasons you presented.  The party would have needed to use a lot of resources to deal with the potential accusation that it is an anti-Semitic party.  This could help or hurt the party in parts of Toronto.  It would hurt the NDP in northern Ontario and parts of Hamilton where the voters place issues related to the Middle East in low priority.  If there are strong spokespersons that opposed Shurman's bill, the NDP could possibly survive the anti-anti-Semitic attacks from members of the Jewish community and their supporters.  Since I don't see any person in the NDP willing to take up the battle in support of IAW, I think the NDP was wise not to oppose Shurman's private member bill.


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

I think if I were an MPP, I might take the view that whatever I may personally think of the words used in the title of IAW - its not the place of the Ontario legislature to to be passing gratuitous resolutions telling peope what they can and cannot call their event. If a group in Caledonia decided to have a "First Nations Apartheid Week" in opposition to the blockade there or if a group have an "Iran Hates Women" week - I may find those words unnecessarily provocative and counter-productive in solving problems - but I still don't think its up to the legislature to be taking a position.


aka Mycroft
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2004

Quote:
If a group in Caledonia decided to have a "First Nations Apartheid Week" in opposition to the blockade

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Shurman moves such a motion giving the fact that the Toronto Sun's reported that Shurman has no problem with First Nations in Caledonia being accused of apartheid.


Skinny Dipper
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2005


Statement by Tim Uppal, MP for Edmonton-Sherwood Park on Israeli Apartheid Week


Next week, after consultations with all political parties, I will proudly introduce the following motion before the House of Commons:

"That this House considers itself to be a friend of the State of Israel; that this House is concerned about expressions of anti-Semitism under the guise of "Israeli Apartheid Week"; and that this House explicitly condemns any action in Canada as well as internationally that would equate the State of Israel with the rejected and racist policy of apartheid."

I think the opposition parties could oppose this private member's bill if they were to offer suggestions to amend that includes requiring Canada to endorse a peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on the UN resolutions.


aka Mycroft
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2004

Skinny Dipper wrote:

Hi Pogge,

The NDP could have opposed Shurman's private member bill for the reasons you presented.  The party would have needed to use a lot of resources to deal with the potential accusation that it is an anti-Semitic party.  This could help or hurt the party in parts of Toronto.  It would hurt the NDP in northern Ontario and parts of Hamilton where the voters place issues related to the Middle East in low priority.  If there are strong spokespersons that opposed Shurman's bill, the NDP could possibly survive the anti-anti-Semitic attacks from members of the Jewish community and their supporters.  Since I don't see any person in the NDP willing to take up the battle in support of IAW, I think the NDP was wise not to oppose Shurman's private member bill.

The prudent, if cowardly, thing to do was to take no position. However, DiNovo spoke for the bill and presumably had the ok of caucus to do so on behalf of the NDP.

 

Is it possible to move amendments to resolutions?


remind
Offline
Joined: Jun 25 2004

Again I go to the point of how  out to lunch the  majority of voters are in Ontario....


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

Skinny Dipper wrote:

Hi Pogge,

The NDP could have opposed Shurman's private member bill for the reasons you presented.  The party would have needed to use a lot of resources to deal with the potential accusation that it is an anti-Semitic party.  This could help or hurt the party in parts of Toronto.  It would hurt the NDP in northern Ontario and parts of Hamilton where the voters place issues related to the Middle East in low priority.  If there are strong spokespersons that opposed Shurman's bill, the NDP could possibly survive the anti-anti-Semitic attacks from members of the Jewish community and their supporters.  Since I don't see any person in the NDP willing to take up the battle in support of IAW, I think the NDP was wise not to oppose Shurman's private member bill.

You make it sound as though there are no Jews would support and defend the NDPs position should they have taken a principled stand. There are many Jews who would disagree with you. I hope you don't speak for the ONDP as your presented defense reeks of weasely cowardice and is only annoying me more than I already am. I will not support a party too afraid of bullies to defend the weak.


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

Of course to put all this in perspective there probably isn't even one half of one percent of people in Ontario who give a hoot about what's going on the Middle East - let alone see it as a vote determining issue in the next Ontario election. But I've often noticed that the importance of an issue to the population at large often seem to be inversely proportional to the number of threads and postings it gets on babble.


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

If you have nothing to say, say nothing or go somewhere else.


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

I have plenty to say - you just don't agree with it. If you can't stand the heat - stay out of the kitchen.

BTW: Getting back to the larger topic. What would people think if an annual event was started entitled "Islamic Homophobia and Misogyny Week"? Would you see it as a perfectly legitimate title for an event that was well within the bounds of debate in Canada - whether ytou personally liked it or not - or would you see it as thinly veiled "islamophobia" and gratuitously inflammatory?

What if some Falun Gong supporters start a "Chinese Gestapo Week"?


Michelle
Offline
Joined: May 10 2001
Wow, just look at the type of people Cheri Di Novo has joined forces with: Quote: ---------------- "That this House considers itself to be a friend of the State of Israel; that this House is concerned about expressions of anti-Semitism under the guise of "Israeli Apartheid Week"; and that this House explicitly condemns any action in Canada as well as internationally that would equate the State of Israel with the rejected and racist policy of apartheid." ---------------- Di Novo has given her Conservative friends ammunition to use against activists who she should be standing in solidarity with so that they can smear us with accusations of "anti-semitism", and now the federal Conservatives are ratcheting up the rhetoric. That's pretty awesome. Thanks very much. And it seems to me that unless her party leader specifically distances the party from Di Novo's statement in the Legislature (that statement Horwath released doesn't address Di Novo's statement at all), then it's hard not to consider Di Novo's statement as being sanctioned by the ONDP. It doesn't undo the damage Di Novo has done, nor the fact that she is standing in solidarity with Conservatives instead of activists.

pogge
Offline
Joined: Mar 25 2002

Hi Skinny Dipper.

Your response sounds an awful lot like those in the U.S. who try to explain why the Democrats can't really be faulted for backing down every time the Republicans feign outrage at them. The end result of that is that Democrats govern more like Republicans than like Democratic campaign literature suggested they would. My criticism stands because there would be no point in supporting an NDP that governed like Conservatives just because they did it out of fear and not ideology.

 


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

Stockholm wrote:

I have plenty to say - you just don't agree with it. If you can't stand the heat - stay out of the kitchen.

BTW: Getting back to the larger topic. What would people think if an annual event was started entitled "Islamic Homophobia and Misogyny Week"? Would you see it as a perfectly legitimate title for an event that was well within the bounds of debate in Canada - whether ytou personally liked it or not - or would you see it as thinly veiled "islamophobia" and gratuitously inflammatory?

What if some Falun Gong supporters start a "Chinese Gestapo Week"?

Actually you're saying nothing and contributing less. I would expect the sort of childish tripe above from under-educated Sun Media Israelil racism sycophants, but not on Babble. I had forgotten just how incredibly thick and stupid you really are.

Mods can ban be now that was a purposeful personal attack and I will stand by it as I believe every word to be accurate and truthful.


bagkitty
Offline
Joined: Aug 27 2008

synthome wrote:
 

Also, to the overeducated overpaid gay men who think its "progressive" to march alongside banners of Hamas, I simply invite you to take your short shorts over to Gaza and march for gay rights there.

Injustice is injustice and it is our responsibility to confront it where we find it. Just because one group of monotheists may despise us based on their "revelations" is not sufficient reason to stand by when they are being subjected to systematic violence by a state actor. Frankly, most monotheists look pretty similar to me in this regard... whether it be Jews attacking Pride marches in Jerusalem, Muslims formally executing us in Tehran (and less formally in Baghdad), or Christians seeking to execute us in Kampala... let's just say that the monotheistic/Abrahamic faiths are, by and large, hardly friends of the LGBT communities. But this doesn't mean we get some moral "pass" that allows us to sit back and be silent when they (self-identified members of the various flavours of monotheism) are being oppressed. I find it incomprehensible to require an oppressed community to be "blameless" before expressing solidarity with them and trying to find common cause with them. Then again this lack of comprehension might be the result of my being overeducated (ha) and overpaid (my favourite) and yes, I have worn short shorts on at least a couple of occasions (even if it was several decades ago).


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments